Magnus Anderson wrote:You won't be free of pain for the simple reason that noone has total control over the universe.

Pain is an unwanted consequence. It's what happens but what we never want to happen.

To tolerate pain, for example, does not mean to feel pain. It means to be comfortable with what used to be uncomfortable.

You mean, acceptance of pain.

Magnus Anderson wrote:When I put my hand in a tub full of hot water my aim isn't to feel pain -- what would be the point of that? -- but to make sure that I do not pull my hand out of it. In order to do so, I must desensitize myself, which is to say, I must switch off impulses that are unnecessary, that distract from what I want to do. This process makes the experience, not more uncomfortable, but less.

So you're talking about desensitzation to pain by acceptance. This is a real phenomenon. Acceptance of pain can have the effect of lessening the pain, at least psychologically, and maybe even physically.

So can listening to the voice of your conscience. The discomfort of doing what's right can be much less than it would if you were forced to do it. However, the most comfortable thing to do can often be to ignore your conscience--even if you have to endure the guilt, that pain can be less than the sacrifice you'd have to make if you followed through with your conscience.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Conscience is not about discomfort, I would agree with James, but what is often referred to as "intuitive right and wrong" is.

I don't understand the difference. In what sense is intuitive right and wrong about causing greater discomfort to one's self whereas conscience, in the same situation, would be about lessening discomfort (through desensitization <-- I presume that's what you're talking about).

It's not accurate to say that you're accepting pain. What is accepted is the mediate cause of pain, such as contact between your hand and hot water, but the immediate cause of pain, which is hyper-activity that takes place within your nervous system, is actively rejected.

Both techniques can give you comfort. You can evade or destroy the mediate cause of pain (e.g. the man whipping you) or you can simply destroy hyper-activity within your nervous system (e.g. reactions that arise in response to whipping.) Both preserve or restore your comfort but there is a notable difference between the two. Namely, the former has an advantage of being able to preserve possessions other than comfort (e.g. your body and by extension your life) but it has a disadvantage in that it is a stress on your nervous system. This means it can create discomfort.

Thus, it often happens that a person, who attempts, and perhaps even manages, to evade or destroy the mediate cause of discomfort, ends up causing discomfort to himself with his own actions. This is, for example, what happens to people who over-work, over-exercise, over-think and otherwise over-act.

Discomfort makes you weak. It's a lot more difficult to concentrate when you're in pain than when you're not. It acts like a gravitational force that keeps pulling you down sabotaging any activity you might be trying to engage in.Thus, if you want to be strong, you must preserve your comfort above everything else.

There is no such a thing as “too much comfort”. The problem is that people confuse inner peace (what I refer to as comfort here) with outer peace (what I do not recognize as comfort here.) There is indeed such a thing as “too much outer peace” but there is no such a thing as “too much inner peace”. It's pretty evident that in times of great outer peace, when there are no external threats in the form of wars, that people start degenerating. But this is only because such a peace creates inner discomfort, in the form of boredom, that is very difficult to resolve.

It is my personal opinion that the fundamental decision making process of every organism with a nervous system consists in making sure that one's nervous activation remains within the limits of comfort. Good refers to actions that are within the comfort zone and bad refers to actions that are outside of it. It does not matter what these actions are. They can be anything.

When people speak of “conscience” I immediately think of “inner peace”. And when they speak of “intuition” I immediately think of “emotional regulation”. Not that the two are the same, mind you, but I think that these people, more than anything, are speaking of these phenomena rather than what they think they are speaking of.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

Magnus Anderson wrote:Conscience is not about discomfort, I would agree with James, but what is often referred to as "intuitive right and wrong" is.

I don't understand the difference. In what sense is intuitive right and wrong about causing greater discomfort to one's self whereas conscience, in the same situation, would be about lessening discomfort (through desensitization <-- I presume that's what you're talking about).

I didn't say it's about causing discomfort.

My point is that "intuitive right and wrong" often refers to nothing other than right and wrong in terms of emotional quality. When emotions are regulated, then we say whatever we are doing is right. When they are not, then we say whatever we are doing is wrong.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

Magnus Anderson wrote:My point is that "intuitive right and wrong" often refers to nothing other than right and wrong in terms of emotional quality. When emotions are regulated, then we say whatever we are doing is right. When they are not, then we say whatever we are doing is wrong.

Well, you're right that moral intuition (the way I'm defining it) is highly connected to emotion. I wouldn't say it requires emotion, but it's definitely there. For example, in the scenario above, the one where you find a child wounded in the ditch, I don't think it has to stir a lot of emotion just to intuit that the right thing to do is to help the child. But if you were there, if it were really happening, you might feel inspired to help or guilty if you just walk on by (I consider inspiration and guilt the two main emotions that are tied to moral intuition). But I don't think moral intuition is just the emotions we feel in that scenario, but a sense of knowing right and wrong which can trigger certain strong emotional reactions.

But I'd like to know what the "inner peace" of what you are calling the conscience is. It must have something to do with morality. Otherwise, why call it the conscience?

Inner peace means that whatever actions you're performing, if you're performing any at all, that they are within the limits of comfort.

In other words, it means that you're comfortable with what you're doing.

Inner peace is a necessary condition for good conscience but it is not a sufficient condition. This is because conscience refers to moral decisions whereas inner peace refers to actions of any kind. Thus, good conscience is not merely inner peace but inner peace in moral decisions.

Magnus Anderson wrote:Inner peace means that whatever actions you're performing, if you're performing any at all, that they are within the limits of comfort.

In other words, it means that you're comfortable with what you're doing.

Inner peace is a necessary condition for good conscience but it is not a sufficient condition. This is because conscience refers to moral decisions whereas inner peace refers to actions of any kind. Thus, good conscience is not merely inner peace but inner peace in moral decisions.

Ah, then that would be like deciding to help the child in the ditch (at least for me). Bad conscience, I suppose, would be to endure the guilt from a decision to leave the child there. We could say then that good conscience is being inspired to do good, or feeling inspired that you have done good, and bad conscience would be to feel guilt.

Biggy wrote:Look, we can go into great "technical" depth here regarding what "philosophically" it means to "make the right decision".

If you come on a philosophy board in order to ask us to demonstrate that our decisions are "the right decisions" only to get a negative response in the form of "we don't know what you want us to do" isn't it natural, provided you still want us to do whatever you want us to do, to help us, and thus get closer to achieving your goal, by explaining in more detail what you want us to do?

Most of us no doubt have reached this point. For months [sometimes years] we make the attempt to explain to others how we think about things like human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments.

This particular thread also includes attempts to connect the dots between conflicting human behaviors [embedded in moral and political narratives/agendas] as this relates in turn to human consciousness itself.

Which inevitably will get around to the question of autonomy, volition, will.

Yet we all no doubt marvel at just how mangled our point can become in the minds of others. Still! Even after countless exchanges!!

Indeed, we can't help but ponder what that tells us about, among other things, the limitations of human language, logic, reason.

I'm not asking others to demonstrate that their behaviors are the right ones. I'm asking them to discuss the manner in which they have come to defend their own behaviors. Behaviors that engender conflicts with others relating precisely to the manner in which they have come to understand the relationship [out in the world existentially] between identity, values and political power

In other words...

1] what particular goals do they have?2] how did they come to acquire them given the actual trajectory of their own unique life?3] how have they come to deal with conflicting goods?4] how are all of these interactions related historically, culturally and experientially to the manner in which Karl Marx and others coined the expression "political economy"?

All I then ask is that, in probing these relationships "out in the world", we focus the discussion on particular conflicts that we are all familiar with.

In other words, I focus the discussion not on what we want others to do, but on the extent to which this can actually be grasped [philosophically or otherwise] when in fact others want us to do something else instead.

Magnus Anderson wrote: I have absolutely no idea what you want me to do. As far as I am concerned, you are merely bombarding me with words.

No, I am proposing this: that to the extent it is possible [given the nature of internet exchanges], we connect the dots between our words and the worlds that we actually live in: insofar as the words attempt to describe the conflicts that we ourselves have with others.

My values [vis a vis others] are embedded in my dilemma above. So, how are the values of others [translated into behaviors] not?

They will either take their words there or they will not.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

gib wrote:I'm arguing, among other things, that Biggy needs to at least understand what an "objective/rational demonstration of the morally correct thing to do" is before he can expect to be persuaded by it should someone actually follow through with his challenge. Right now, it seems to me, the only thing one can offer Biggy in response to this challenge is something which would only qualify as what Biggy calls an "existential contraption".

Actually, my distinction [as always] is between ascribing a particular definition and meaning to the words "objective/rational demonstration of the morally correct thing to do", and coming up with an actual experience embedded in a particular existential context whereby empirically "out in the world of actual conflicted human behaviors" such a demonstration is wholly illustrated.

What is the methodology by which we can take those words out into the world and test them?

Here of course that can only be described with words. But the words are either able to be illustrated "out in the world" such that all rational men and women are obligated to share their definition and meaning or they are not.

After all, if the definition of abortion is "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy," one is either talking about an abortion or one is not.

Similarly regarding the definition of morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

One is either discussing the morality of abortion or one is not.

Indeed, how difficult is it to wholly illustrate that?

But then after we all agree on that, we reach the part where it is to be decided if the morality of this particular abortion encompasses/embodies a right behavior or a wrong behavior.

All I ask here is for an argument that would in fact be able to establish this in the same manner in which it can in fact be established that we are discussing the morality of this particular abortion.

I'm not saying the argument doesn't exist, only that from my own frame of mind [here and now] such an argument is entangled in my dilemma.

Then: How are you not entangled in it yourself?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

gib wrote:I'm arguing, among other things, that Biggy needs to at least understand what an "objective/rational demonstration of the morally correct thing to do" is before he can expect to be persuaded by it should someone actually follow through with his challenge. Right now, it seems to me, the only thing one can offer Biggy in response to this challenge is something which would only qualify as what Biggy calls an "existential contraption".

Actually, my distinction [as always] is between ascribing a particular definition and meaning to the words "objective/rational demonstration of the morally correct thing to do", and coming up with an actual experience embedded in a particular existential context whereby empirically "out in the world of actual conflicted human behaviors" such a demonstration is wholly illustrated.

What is the methodology by which we can take those words out into the world and test them?

Here of course that can only be described with words. But the words are either able to be illustrated "out in the world" such that all rational men and women are obligated to share their definition and meaning or they are not.

After all, if the definition of abortion is "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy," one is either talking about an abortion or one is not.

Similarly regarding the definition of morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

One is either discussing the morality of abortion or one is not.

Indeed, how difficult is it to wholly illustrate that?

But then after we all agree on that, we reach the part where it is to be decided if the morality of this particular abortion encompasses/embodies a right behavior or a wrong behavior.

All I ask here is for an argument that would in fact be able to establish this in the same manner in which it can in fact be established that we are discussing the morality of this particular abortion.

I'm not saying the argument doesn't exist, only that from my own frame of mind [here and now] such an argument is entangled in my dilemma.

Then: How are you not entangled in it yourself?

I'd buy you a prostitute, but I can't even afford one myself. I can sense your sexual frustration from here.

He wants confirmation that he did nothing wrong in his life, that he made no mistakes and that he could not have done anything in any other way. He wants to feel that he cannot be criticized by others and he need not criticize himself. That is what brings him peace.

Yep.

Nope.

Well, unless of course I'm wrong.

Anyway [as always] thanks for the contribution, James.

Oh, and that reminds me...

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Let's say that a man is taken away in the middle of the night by the secret police. He is tortured, killed and his body is "dumped".

Is it an intellectual contraption if he thinks that his treatment is immoral?

From my frame of mind, an intellectual contraption relating to the components of my own argument -- identity, value judgments and political power -- is one in which actual behaviors such as this do not even make an appearance.

Instead, they are encompassed in conflicting reactions to human behaviors such as this by way of scholastic assessments --- "general descriptions" of human interactions in one or another academic, didactic lecture. Think Satyr at KT and James S. Saint here. **

My point is that individual reactions to this sort of behavior will be embedded largely in the actual existential trajectory of any particular life. That, give a unique and particular sequence of experiences, relationships, sources of information/knowledge etc., one is predisposed to react one way rather than another. That, in other words, there does not appear to be an argument [philosophical or otherwise] that can in fact establish how all rational men and women are obligated to react.

And, in part, because there are arguments that can be made to rationalize such behavior from both sides. From many conflicting sides. Embedded [politically] in conflicting goods.

And [again] that's before we get to the arguments posed by the sociopaths.

** Consider this "observation":

James S Saint wrote:"Conscience" is the sense of (whether delusion or not) innocence or guilt (aka "right or wrong").

The sense of guilt can, and often does, bring with it a feeling of discomfort (threat of retribution). But "conscience" is not about the discomfort but rather about the awareness of innocence or guilt.

You tell me: What on earth are we to make of this pertaining to our individual reactions to the methods used by the secret police above?

They either tortured and killed the man or they did not.

Now, what are philosophers [ethicists] to make of it if they did? Is there a deontological assessment here that all reasonable/rational folks are obligated to embrace?

Or does it instead depend on the particular context seen from particular [and conflicting] points of view. Political points of view. Or religious points of view. Or ideological points of view. Or points of view said to be most in sync with "nature"?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Magnus Anderson wrote:Chance, contingency and change . . . and yet, you are the most inflexible and repetitive person on this forum.

Again, there are those things that we claim to know or to believe are true "in our head" that are able to be demonstrated as in fact true objectively "for all of us". Sure, there may well be contingency, chance and change embedded in these phenomena "over time" but the reprecussions of this are no less true for all of us.

We remain inflexible and repetitive regarding these truths because it is reasonable to do so.

But with respect to our prong #2 interactions those aren't the things [the relationships, the consequences] that I focus on pertaining to my dilemma above.

Are they?

Let's go there then and explore the extent to which it is not applicable to you when your own behaviors come into conflict with others.

What are we able to establish as in fact true for all of us and what, instead, becomes entangled in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy.

You choose the context.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

You are inflexible and repetitive not because it's reasonable to do so but quite simply because you have no respect for the consequences of your actions. You don't want to admit to yourself that what you're doing is unreasonable because then you would have to make a drastic change in your behavior something for which you simply have no patience at all. And this is evident in the manner you interact with people on this forum such as for example me.

You never respond on point. You evade and then make excuses for evasion.

Narcissists have no interest in measuring the performance of their actions. Instead, they simply act and then override the consequences of their actions by imagining they are doing well. You try to hide this and make yourself appear credible by adding an entirely valueless "I might be wrong".

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

Magnus Anderson wrote: You are inflexible and repetitive not because it's reasonable to do so but quite simply because you have no respect for the consequences of your actions.

My point however is that different folks have different reactions to the consequences of any particular set of actions.

And then the objectivists come along and refuse to respect the reactions of anyone who does not share their own.

How is that not reasonable?

Magnus Anderson wrote: You don't want to admit to yourself that what you're doing is unreasonable because then you would have to make a drastic change in your behavior something for which you simply have no patience at all. And this is evident in the manner you interact with people on this forum such as for example me.

Again, let's explore my own reaction to the question that revolves around the behavior we call abortion: "is aborting a human fetus rational...is it moral?"

My answer is embedded existentially in this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin. 2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my "tour of duty" in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman's right to choose.4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary's choice to abort their unborn baby. 5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.6] I read William Barrett's Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding "rival goods".7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

Which then precipitates [philosophically and otherwise] this frame of mind:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

In other words, I am inhibited from making any "drastic change" in my behavior because I have come to conclude that any change at all is merely embedded in an existential contraption rooted in dasein and conflicting goods.

And then I ask folks like you: How is this not applicable to your own behaviors?

Thus when you level this accusation at me:

Magnus Anderson wrote: You never respond on point. You evade and then make excuses for evasion.

That is precisely what I am inclined to think about you. And many other objectivists.

Magnus Anderson wrote: Narcissists have no interest in measuring the performance of their actions. Instead, they simply act and then override the consequences of their actions by imagining they are doing well. You try to hide this and make yourself appear credible by adding an entirely valueless "I might be wrong".

Narcissists [like many sociopaths] are interested only in behaving in a manner that it reinforces their own sense of self-gratification. Sometimes they will agree that there is a right and a wrong behavior, but they just don't care. Other times they will insist that in the absence of God right and wrong can only be understood from the perspective of any particular mere mortal in any particular context viewing the world around them from the perspective of "what's in it for me?"

Personally, I do try to live my own life embodying the perspective embedded in the Golden Rule: would I want others to do this to me?

I merely have no illusions but that this is just one more existential contraption rooted by and large in the particular sequence of experiences that have encompassed my life. So far.

Though even here I have no way of demonstrating to others that all reasonable men and women are obligated to think like this. So I am always acknowledging here that I may well be wrong.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Narcissism is about falsifying the evident in order to protect oneself from the unpleasant emotional reactions.

Narcissists have no emotional resilience -- their nervous system is inflexible -- so instead of slowing down their densely packed emotional reactions they are protecting themselves from them by telling themselves all sorts of lies.

The event that triggers unpleasant emotions, in other words, is discredited.

Like a fox that can't reach the grapes. The observation of failure -- that the fox couldn't reach the grapes -- triggers certain very unpleasant emotional reactions. The brain automatically starts making certain attempts to remedy the situation but because everything happens all at once it becomes counter-productive. Instead of slowing its emotions down, by having patience, the fox falsifies its past, i.e. it adds a layer of imagination on the path to memory, by telling itself that it never wanted to reach these grapes (because they are supposedly sour.) This means the fox didn't fail, because its goal wasn't to reach the grapes, but perhaps merely to try to reach them, and so the brain of the fox no longer reacts and the fox is happy.

Narcissism is self-gratifying in this particular sense.

Narcissists are quite simply reality falsifiers. They bury unwanted aspects of their past deep beneath dense layers of imagination in order to protect themselves from their own emotional reactions.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

Magnus Anderson wrote:You never respond on point. You evade and then make excuses for evasion.

That is precisely what I am inclined to think about you. And many other objectivists.

I am not evading anything. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am asking you to tell me what you want me to do so that I can do it. But you never respond to my questions. Instead, you just bombard me with words and declare a victory when you see me walk away. Cool stuff, bro.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

Magnus Anderson wrote: Narcissism is about falsifying the evident in order to protect oneself from the unpleasant emotional reactions.

This sounds like something a computer programmed by an analytic philosopher would spit out.

I think it's time to...reboot?

Magnus Anderson wrote: Narcissists have no emotional resilience -- their nervous system is inflexible -- so instead of slowing down their densely packed emotional reactions they are protecting themselves from them by telling themselves all sorts of lies.

Okay, let's bring this down to earth. A particular narcissist out in a particular world interacting in a particular context in which a behavior he chose [fucking] resulted in impregnating a woman. She wants to abort it. He sees that as murdering his child. His child. What then constitutes emotional resilience here? What frame of mind can be demonstrated to be the embodiment of a lie?

Magnus Anderson wrote: Narcissists are quite simply reality falsifiers. They bury unwanted aspects of their past deep beneath dense layers of imagination in order to protect themselves from their own emotional reactions.

Okay, maybe. But what does that really have to do with this:

Narcissists [like many sociopaths] are interested only in behaving in a manner that it reinforces their own sense of self-gratification. Sometimes they will agree that there is a right and a wrong behavior, but they just don't care. Other times they will insist that in the absence of God right and wrong can only be understood from the perspective of any particular mere mortal in any particular context viewing the world around them from the perspective of "what's in it for me?"

You choose the context and the behaviors in conflict [the "reality"] and we can explore your theories more...substantively.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

This sounds like something a computer programmed by an analytic philosopher would spit out.

That's exactly how you sound to me. Minus the "analytic philosopher" part. You don't sound like a philosopher or a thinker at all. More like a broken record repeating fancy terms that you have picked from some external source but without understanding them. Terms such as, I don't know, "dasein"?

Whatever you don't understand you judge as "too abstract" or "up in the clouds". Very convenient. I have nothing against it. Have your fun.

Okay, let's bring this down to earth.

In other words, you're too stupid to understand what I am saying -- indeed, you have no idea what narcissism is -- and beside being stupid you're also unwilling to admit you are, or might be, stupid, so let's put the burden on the other, on me, to justify myself instead of simply asking "can you please explain yourself to me, I don't understand what you're saying".

Okay, maybe. But what does that really have to do with this:

Little. Your understanding of narcissism is superficial. It's stupid. According to your definition, even animals such as lions are narcissists. When in fact they aren't.

You choose the context and the behaviors in conflict [the "reality"] and we can explore your theories more...substantively.

Maybe, if you were humble and trustworthy in general. Which you aren't. So I can only mock you.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

A narcissist is someone who doesn't take responsibility for his actions.

What does this means?It means he does not accept the consequences of his actions. In other words, he does not measure the performance of his actions by comparing what he wanted to happen (desired outcome) with what in fact happened (actual outcome.) The purpose of such a measurement is to facilitate learning. Learning is the process of adaptation, which is to say, the process of adjustment of strength of connections between some set of actions and some set of outcomes. When you make a mistake, which is a dissonance between what you wanted to happen and what happened, you adjust the corresponding connection between the action you performed and the outcome that was produced by weakening its strength, which is to say, by decreasing its probability of success. Otherwise, you strengthen the connection.

Narcissists don't measure the performance of their actions thus they don't learn. They change but they don't learn. They stagnate.

They think that they are always right. That their actions are perfect and thus beyond any kind of measurement.

Think of Christians and their prayers. They believe prayers are perfect, requiring no measurement to adjust how well they perform, which is to say, their probability of success.

Think of democrats and their voting rituals. They believe voting is perfect, requiring no measurement to adjust how well it performs, which is to say, its probability of success.

These are examples of narcissistic behavior. Not what you're giving us. But this.

Self-gratification, in the context of narcissism, refers to the refusal to restrain actions that are clearly not giving desirable results. It does not simply mean pursuing self-interest.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

This sounds like something a computer programmed by an analytic philosopher would spit out.

That's exactly how you sound to me. Minus the "analytic philosopher" part. You don't sound like a philosopher or a thinker at all. More like a broken record repeating fancy terms that you have picked from some external source but without understanding them. Terms such as, I don't know, "dasein"?

Again: Let's bring this down to earth. Let's bring our respective "terms" out into the world. Let's focus the discussion on a particular [and well known] prong #2 conflagration.

You can attempt to encompass your own rendition of Gib's prong #1 assessment, and then integrate it into the existential reality of this particular set of conflicted human behaviors.

Magnus Anderson wrote: Whatever you don't understand you judge as "too abstract" or "up in the clouds". Very convenient. I have nothing against it. Have your fun.

No, what I do is to ask those who think they understand something...something relating to human interactions revolving around the relationship between identity, moral/political narratives and power...and take what they think they understand out into a particular context that we might all be familiar with.

They either will or they won't.

Okay, let's bring this down to earth.

Magnus Anderson wrote: In other words, you're too stupid to understand what I am saying -- indeed, you have no idea what narcissism is -- and beside being stupid you're also unwilling to admit you are, or might be, stupid, so let's put the burden on the other, on me, to justify myself instead of simply asking "can you please explain yourself to me, I don't understand what you're saying".

Huffing and puffing? Making me the argument?

Well, believe it or not, I've been there and done that with any number of objectivists over the years.

Now, from my point of view, I invariably end up making fools of them.

But not you, right?

Note to others:

Given his understanding of narcissism and my own who might be more effective when confronting the narcissist "in reality"?

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

I've been away from this thread for a while. Been busy. I now have some time.

iambiguous wrote:

iambiguous wrote:But, assuming some level of autonomy, there does not appear to be a way for philosophers to establish a frame of mind such that the manner in which I root morality in dasein and conflicting goods is obviated -- subsumed in a moral narrative that all rational men and women are in fact obligated to embody.

gib wrote:There doesn't have to be. Intelligent men and women all around the world subject themselves to being persuaded by one or another objective-sounding arguments for this or that morality all the time. Unless your brain suffers some kind of critical defect, so can you.

That's why I always focus the beam here on conflicts in which a "consensus" [the irresistible force in one community] makes contact with another "consensus" [the immovable object in another community].

Take for example the practice of clitorectomies. How do we determine objectively whether this practice is or is not in sync with that which all intelligent men and women are obligated to either embrace or eschew. How do we derive the essential argument that unequivocally transcends historical, cultural and experiential context?

You shouldn't be asking that question. You know it leads to a dead end.

That's why I'm saying to take a different route. Get back into objectivism... then trying moving back out of it through an entirely different route.

iambiguous wrote:

gib wrote:But as I see it, they are still laws of nature that could just as well force us to to arrive at fallacious and delusional conclusions, shared among us all as they may be. This is why I say that the argument about being stuck in a deterministic universe applies even to mathematical logic and concrete sensory experience.

This makes sense to you. It should to you too. But it makes sense to you only because there was never any possibility that it would not make sense to you. For a reason. So, what does it mean for another to suggest that it is fallacious and delusional when there was never any possibility in turn that they would not say this?

What it means is irrelevant. In regards to living in a deterministic universe, what we are able to come to grips with on the "is" side of the "is/ought" divide and what we are able to come to grips with on the "ought" side of the "is/ought" divide should make absolutely no difference to you. If on the "ought" side, you can only conclude that, in our moral convictions, we come up with existential fabrications due to the fact that, living in a deterministic universe, it could not have been any other way, then that exact reasoning can be carried over to the "is" side, and you should be concluding exactly the same thing. I'm say that, I'm afraid, your dilemma applies even to "is" questions.

iambiguous wrote:Then we understand the meaning of "stuck" in different ways. My meaning revolves around a universe in which I was never, ever going to not be stuck in it. All I can then imagine is this universe unfolding in such a way that "in my head" I come to think/believe that I am not stuck in it. But even that is only as it ever could have been.

So, actually being "stuck" in a universe is just another frame of mind that matter has propelled me to ponder in different --- but no less determined -- ways.

Then we come back to the meaning of "choice". As I said above, the ability to violate the laws of nature is not the only way to define "choice" or "freedom". Most people, when they talk about acting "freely" are not supposing they can defy the laws of nature--they simply mean that when they have the experience of making a "choice" they're actions unfold exactly in accordance with what they feel they are "choosing" to do. The difference between being free or being forced has nothing to do with whether or not things could have turned out differently, but where the forces that determine the outcome of our actions originate from--do they originate from within or without? Are we the force that determines our actions, or is it a force that comes from outside ourselves? For example, a purse snatcher sneaks up on a woman and tries to yank her purse from her hand. She resists. The purse snatcher is a force that works against the woman, who is herself a force acting in resistance. The former defies the woman's will to keep her purse. If he succeeds, we say she was robbed against her will. But suppose the same woman earlier that day handed her purse over to her husband for safe keeping. It could be construed as more or less the same action: she relinquishes her purse from her possession to another man. But in one case, she does so against her will, in the other case, she does so according to her will.

Any way you cut it, however, they are all forces working in the fray of a deterministic universe, and one could still say things could not have been any other way.

Bringing this back to your dilemma, the only way you can get away with saying that you are "stuck" in your dilemma, always doubting the truth of objectivist-sounding arguments, is if you were actually trying to be persuaded by them, eager to be open to them, but some outside force (as if someone else had control over your mind) was preventing you.

You have a very primitive understanding of psychology, naturally, since you're a very primitive person. Maybe you should stop doing it because, you know, in my very own personal opinion which may turn out to be OH MY GOD wrong one day in the future, you are terrible at it.

What I'm seeing is this: you come here, make some noise that noone can make any sense of, then you watch people's reactions and then try to spot a pattern you want to spot e.g. that they are losing it. Very funny.

You know it all. But because you show how humble you are by adding IMO after every claim you make, well, it can be excused.

Applause.

I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.-- Mr. Reasonable

iambiguous wrote:Take for example the practice of clitorectomies. How do we determine objectively whether this practice is or is not in sync with that which all intelligent men and women are obligated to either embrace or eschew. How do we derive the essential argument that unequivocally transcends historical, cultural and experiential context?

You shouldn't be asking that question. You know it leads to a dead end.

Two points:

1] I don't know that it leads to a dead end. I only know that "here and now" I am not myself privy to the argument that does in fact resolve it. 2] my argument is aimed more at those who insist that not only has it already been fully resolved, it has been fully resolved by them

The objectivists in other words.

gib wrote: That's why I'm saying to take a different route. Get back into objectivism... then trying moving back out of it through an entirely different route.

How then would one actually go about doing this in regard to particularly contentious conflicts like clitorectomies, abortion, homosexuality, animal rights, gender roles etc..

How would you do it? In other words, for all practical purposes pertaining to a particular context in which your values come into conflict with anothers.

gib wrote:But as I see it, they are still laws of nature that could just as well force us to to arrive at fallacious and delusional conclusions, shared among us all as they may be. This is why I say that the argument about being stuck in a deterministic universe applies even to mathematical logic and concrete sensory experience.

iambiguous wrote:This makes sense to you. But it makes sense to you only because there was never any possibility that it would not make sense to you. So, what does it mean for another to suggest that it is fallacious and delusional when there was never any possibility in turn that they would not say this?

gib wrote: What it means is irrelevant. In regards to living in a deterministic universe, what we are able to come to grips with on the "is" side of the "is/ought" divide and what we are able to come to grips with on the "ought" side of the "is/ought" divide should make absolutely no difference to you.

Yet how in a wholly determine universe would I really have any autonomous choice in regard to deciding whether it makes a difference to me. If I think that it does then I was never going to think that it doesn't. The "is/ought" world -- the conflicts in it -- are just an illusion. Every human interaction is necessarily subsumed in the immutable laws of matter.

gib wrote: If on the "ought" side, you can only conclude that, in our moral convictions, we come up with existential fabrications due to the fact that, living in a deterministic universe, it could not have been any other way, then that exact reasoning can be carried over to the "is" side, and you should be concluding exactly the same thing. I'm say that, I'm afraid, your dilemma applies even to "is" questions.

We "come up with" only that which we could never not come up with. We conclude only that which we were never permitted not to conclude if we are to be in sync with the laws of matter.

iambiguous wrote:Then we understand the meaning of "stuck" in different ways. My meaning revolves around a universe in which I was never, ever going to not be stuck in it. All I can then imagine is this universe unfolding in such a way that "in my head" I come to think/believe that I am not stuck in it. But even that is only as it ever could have been.

So, actually being "stuck" in a universe is just another frame of mind that matter has propelled me to ponder in different --- but no less determined -- ways.

gib wrote: Then we come back to the meaning of "choice".

Or: Then we are back to determining the extent to which the meaning that we attach to "choice" "here and now" is or is not the only meaning that we were ever permitted to impart given that we are permitted to impart only the meaning that is rooted in whatever [or whoever] set into motion the laws of matter.

And then the extent to which they either are or are not truly immutable.

gib wrote: As I said above, the ability to violate the laws of nature is not the only way to define "choice" or "freedom". Most people, when they talk about acting "freely" are not supposing they can defy the laws of nature--they simply mean that when they have the experience of making a "choice" they're actions unfold exactly in accordance with what they feel they are "choosing" to do.

Exactly: "Choosing".

gib wrote: The difference between being free or being forced has nothing to do with whether or not things could have turned out differently, but where the forces that determine the outcome of our actions originate from--do they originate from within or without? Are we the force that determines our actions, or is it a force that comes from outside ourselves?

Here however we are clearly stuck. Why? Because in order to actually answer these questions we would have to be cognizant of that which wholly encompasses Reality and Existence itself. And surely one of the biggest mysteries here by far is where the brain ends and the mind begins, where all that is "out in the world" ends and where all that is "in my head" begins.

In other words, the truly enigmatic, perplexing connundrum embedded and then embodied in the self-conscious "I".

gib wrote: For example, a purse snatcher sneaks up on a woman and tries to yank her purse from her hand. She resists. The purse snatcher is a force that works against the woman, who is herself a force acting in resistance. The former defies the woman's will to keep her purse. If he succeeds, we say she was robbed against her will. But suppose the same woman earlier that day handed her purse over to her husband for safe keeping. It could be construed as more or less the same action: she relinquishes her purse from her possession to another man. But in one case, she does so against her will, in the other case, she does so according to her will.

Any way you cut it, however, they are all forces working in the fray of a deterministic universe, and one could still say things could not have been any other way.

Okay, assemble a bunch of us in a room. We are watching two film clips. In the first a woman is robbed of her purse against her will. In the second she hands over her purse willingly to her husband.

We are asked to react and we do.

Now in a deterministic universe every single thing that happens above was never ever not going to happen.

From my frame of mind once that is understood then it is understood in turn that our exchange here on this thread is in exactly the same boat. The only boat there is.

And then I am back to concluding that you are explaining something here of fundamental importance about "compatibilism" that I am simply [still] unable to fathom.

gib wrote: Bringing this back to your dilemma, the only way you can get away with saying that you are "stuck" in your dilemma, always doubting the truth of objectivist-sounding arguments, is if you were actually trying to be persuaded by them, eager to be open to them, but some outside force (as if someone else had control over your mind) was preventing you.

If "I" exist in a wholly detrmined universe then thinking and feeling that I am "stuck" here is just part and parcel of Reality. It is just another domino toppling over onto yours toppling over onto mine.

And at the very core of this problematic enigma is the understanding of what it means to "try" to accomplish something that is only ever going to be what it was never not going to be.

He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles